Ho, ho, ho
Via Yahoo News:
SYDNEY (AFP) – Santas in Australia’s largest city have been told not to use Father Christmas’s traditional “ho ho ho” greeting because it may be offensive to women, it was reported Thursday.
Sydney’s Santa Clauses have instead been instructed to say “ha ha ha” instead, the Daily Telegraph reported.
One disgruntled Santa told the newspaper a recruitment firm warned him not to use “ho ho ho” because it could frighten children and was too close to “ho”, a US slang term for prostitute.
“Gimme a break,” said Julie Gale, who runs the campaign against sexualising children called Kids Free 2B Kids.
“We are talking about little kids who do not understand that “ho, ho, ho” has any other connotation and nor should they,” she told the Telegraph.
“Leave Santa alone.”
A local spokesman for the US-based Westaff recruitment firm said it was “misleading” to say the company had banned Santa’s traditional greeting and it was being left up to the discretion of the individual Santa himself.
For the first time since 1959, both Michigan and Ohio State lost the weekend before The Game. While it takes some of the national significance away (Ohio State is not playing for a spot in the MNC) the rivalry is clearly one of the best in all sports and the stakes are still very, very high with the winner taking the Big 10 Championship outright and a likely spot in the Rose Bowl. If you’re looking for a facts and figures kind of preview, we recommend Bucknuts game data as the place to get your fix. In fact, you might find more questions in this preview than answers and conclusions.
Let’s get the prediction out of the way right now, the game, scheduled for November 17th in Ann Arbor starts at 9am PT and as of today, there is no line on the game though earlier in the week, Ohio State was a 3 point favorite. I’m an Ohio State fan and I believe Ohio State will win a hotly contested game. I’ve been in the habit of giving score predictions throughout the year, but I just don’t have one this week. I simply believe the Buckeyes will prevail.
There are many delicious story lines around this game and they really lead me to a series of questions. So rather than the standard game preview, I’ll simply enumerate the questions below.
- Will Michigan quarterback Chad Henne play? If so, how long before his arm falls off and Ryan Mallet relieves him?
- Will Beanie Well’s ankle allow more than 1 quarter’s production?
- Will Lloyd Carr retire as is being widely reported on Monday? And if so, will he do so having notched a win against the Bucks?
- Will Mike Hart play, and if so, will he break the 100 yard mark on a suddenly porous Buckeye run defense?
- How many turnovers, penalties, and mental errors will we see Saturday?
- Which team will bounce back most effectively from their loss last week?
- Who really wants to play in the Rose Bowl and win the Big 10 Championship?
- If the 3-3-5 defense is being shredded by Michigan, will Defensive Coordinator Heacock make a change? And will it be in time?
- Was passing up the NFL millions worthwhile for Jake Long, Chad Henne, and Mike Hart to return to
win a national championship and beat OSU?
- Which Buckeye offensive line will show up? The one that dominated Wisconsin and Penn State or the one that crumbled against Illinois front four?
- How many QB scrambles will Todd Boeckman run? Can Michigan stop him?
- Will Michigan play no huddle?
- Are the Wolverine cornerbacks able to keep up with the Brians? Or maybe the Rays? Or maybe even the Brandons?
- How many interceptions will Boeckman throw?
- Which Michigan defense will show up? The one that surrendered App State, Oregon, and Wisconsin or the one that help the team rip off eight consecutive victories?
- How many times will Mallet a) be sacked b) fumble c) throw touchdowns on Saturday?
- Who will win the Jake Long vs Vernon Gholston battle throughout the course of the game?
- What role will the kicking and return games play in this game? Will we see a special teams breakdown for a blocked punt/field goal, a return for a touchdown, repeated “good” returns changing field position?
- Will the Big 3 (Henne, Hart, and Long) be too tight for the game, putting too much pressure on themselves to win?
- Will Manningham and/or Arrington be a factor in this game?
- How many third down conversions will be successful?
- Will the officials actually call holding in this game? Will it take a defensive linemen dragging the offensive line tractor-pull style past the referee to get it called? Blatant tackling hasn’t seemed to rise to the level of the penalty yet…
- Will the replay equipment actually work? And if so, has the vision of the replay official been recently verified?
- How many mental errors will Shawn Crable commit?
- Will the home crowd continue the lame “key play” noise making scheme, or heaven forbid, actually scream and yell making it loud?
- Will ABC be able to broadcast the game without referencing that the Big 10 is “down this year” and reaffirm bogus SEC-superiority? Question: Which conference is 9-4 against BCS out of conference competition and which is 5-5?
- How many plays will be missed because of a) poor production values b) announcer hijinks or c) outright production incompetence?
- What’s this year’s wrinkle? Last year, running Beanie every time up the middle between the tackles on 3 or 4th and 1 for the first down happened in every game that setup the beautifully called and executed play action pass to from Troy Smith to Ted Ginn for a touchdown. Tressel seems to set tendencies over the course of the season to break them in this game.
That’s the list I can think of right off the top of my head, feel free to add your own in the commentary. Should be a great game, I’m looking forward to it. Go Bucks!
STOP – This data has been updated for the entire season in this entry. Enjoy.
For prior CSRs, check the links at the bottom of this entry. Here are the results as of games completed Saturday, November 10:
Comments on each conference follow, in alphabetical order:
- ACC – No change from prior report. 7 of 12 teams now bowl eligible, 2 teams within reach.
- Big East – Slight increase in OOC win rates. 5 of 8 teams now bowl eligible, 2 teams within reach.
- Big 10 – Slight increase in OOC win rates. 10 of 11 teams now bowl eligible.
- Big 12 – No change from prior report. 6 of 12 teams now bowl eligible, 4 teams within reach.
- Pac 10 – No change from prior report. 5 of 10 teams now bowl eligible, 3 teams within reach.
- SEC – Slight increase in OOC win rate. 10 of 12 teams now bowl eligible, 1 team within reach.
Based on performance to date, on the field, the conference ranking should be:
- Pac 10 – That Cal win over Tennessee doesn’t help the SEC’s case for #1, nor does the West Virginia blow out of Mississippi State…
- SEC – Have you ever noticed that when, say a Kentucky beats an LSU it’s because the SEC is so tough but when another strong, yet not quite top-tier team beats a big dog in another conference it’s because that conference sucks? Didn’t think so. The SEC has an impressive 10 teams bowl eligible and one still in contention to get there. And, credit where credit is due, the SEC has ZERO defeats out-of-conference against DIAA and non-BCS DI competition (in fact, not only could the SEC winner claim the SEC Championship, but the SunBelt too…)
- Big 10 – 10 of 11 teams are eligible to go bowling. Minnesota has no shot this year of joining that group.
- Big 12 – The strength at the top continues, though Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma will beat each other up over the next couple of weeks. The smart money is on Oklahoma, but for some reason, I like Missouri…Up to ten Big 12 teams could be bowl eligible at season’s end.
- Big East – West Virginia and Connecticut are battling for the BCS bid, 5 teams are bowl eligible with another 2 possible.
- ACC – Those BC losses really hurt and Miami is struggling to become bowl eligible. Seven teams are looking at post-season play now and potentially another two could join the party.
- Notre Dame – Tough year to be a Domer fan. Enough has been said, Charlie is recruiting at a high level, but does anyone notice that the players aren’t improving during their tenure in South Bend?
Come back next week for an update of the Conference Strength Report. Prior reports are available below:
Sky Reflected in Solar Panel Installation
Generally, other than solar thermal, we have been less than impressed with the “businesses” in the solar (pv/thin film) segment. The products are expensive, the business models opportunistic, and the conversation revolves around which technology is best while other harvest methods leave the segment in the dust. It looks like a bubble, smells like a bubble, and ultimately will be proven to be a bubble.
As with every bubble, there are likely to be a few winners and many losers over the long term. Despite our distaste for the segment, it will over the long-term prosper we believe which means that identifying those likely winners to emerge from the down-cycle of the bubble when it pops is important. While at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum in New York last summer, we believed that we identified one of those companies, First Solar. Lately, the company has been on a tear: currently trading at 10x their January, 2007 IPO price, 3rd quarter revenue tripled Y/Y, and 3rd quarter earnings are up 10.7x Y/Y. The company’s market capitalization now stands at $14.5B and the shares trade at a P/E ratio of 216 trailing twelve months. It’s clear the market has discovered First Solar.
That’s all great information, First Solar is clearly benefiting from stellar performance and also the meta market conditions, why is it a long-term winner? Mike Ahern, the CEO for First Solar won us over with his clarity of vision, simple plan, and aligning the fundamental metrics of execution with compensation. Notice, we said nothing about technology – it is adequate to achieve their aims and future breakthroughs can be applied to the business First Solar is building. The vision is clear: Profitably make commercial concerns energy independent using First Solar products. The market is clear, target commercial entities with access to solar resource where a payback is possible. The execution plan revolves around reducing the price of First Solar’s products by increasing volume and refining the process with specific improvement targets over time. Hint: They’ve already reduced their cost of manufacturing 3x.
Shifting a bit to technology only to highlight a business process, First Solar uses 2’x4′ glass panels coated with a thin chemical film (cadmium-telluride or CdTe) to create their product. They’ve invented a continuous process that enables a single panel to be produced in a 2 hour window as it traverses the manufacturing process. They fully understand the throughput and are continuously monitoring and refining the manufacturing process. In order to produce more product, they start new lines and/or establish new facilities (like Germany and an upcoming Asian location.)
Back to business, Ahern stated that the company executives and staff have goals and are compensated on three key metrics: revenue growth rate, product cost reduction rate, and product volume. The goals and the company’s execution against them to date coupled with pursuing a focused market strategy lead us to believe that First Solar is likely to be a winner in the long-term (though perhaps not at this market capitalization) and will be in a position to lead a consolidation in the solar space when the bubble bursts.
Disclosure: The author maintains a long position in First Solar shares.
This is the third entry in a series on Rebuilding America, what I would like to hear candidates address in the 2008 election. An overview entry was posted a couple of weeks ago and a contextual entry on Core Values was posted last week. This entry will focus on one core issue, concluding the war in Iraq. It is best digested after reading the overview and core values entries.
Yesterday was Veteran’s Day, a time to honor the people who agree to protect our freedom with their blood. They give freely of themselves to protect the greater society, even those who represent ideas they abhor. We owe these citizens respect and honor for their sacrifice. More to the point, we owe these citizens special responsibility to only ask them to serve and sacrifice in special instances where their knowledge, skills, and abilities are required. The use of force is a necessary tool facilitating the intercourse between nations. But it is a costly tool in a number of dimensions and thus must be wielded soberly and selectively. The explicit compact we as a society make with our citizen soldiers revolves around judicious application of force such that it protects and defends our society from imminent threat and that we make the decision to commit their lives when other reasonable measures have been exhausted.
First, a positive example when the compact was honored and the system worked. In 1990 Saddam Hussein led Iraq unilaterally occupied Kuwait. The reasons for Iraq’s actions are not important, the fact is, the Iraqi State chose to exercise force and occupied a neighbor. The community of nations in the region, and the world came together strongly and demanded that the Iraqi State vacate Kuwait. Months of diplomacy, sanctions, and pressure were applied to no avail. When the non-force options were clearly ineffective, the community of nations resolved to use force to rectify the situation all the while maintaining diplomatic pressure. The application of force was advertised well in advance, the demands were clear, and it was the community of nations making the demand, not a single country. In 1991 a multi-lateral force destroyed the Iraqi military capability and liberated Kuwait returning the nation to pre-occupation government.
In this instance, there was a clear, factual cause of action. There was a clear non-force related series of responses from the world community. And finally, there was a common resolve among the international community that force was the only viable alternative. The application of the force was swift, efficient, and effective. Kuwait did not require prolonged occupation by the liberating forces, though significant rebuilding was required. America played a leading role in liberating Kuwait and also in mortally crippling Iraq’s ability to act as an aggressor. America honored its contract with those special citizens who agreed to serve in our military when we chose to the application of force in this specific mission with clear objectives; it was a proud moment in our history.
Fast forward 12 years to 2003. America is still reeling from the shock of the terrorist attacks in 2001 and has rushed to action in Afghanistan. The country is swiftly conquered and occupied. The fundamentalist Islamic terrorist apparatus is banished from the country and flees into Pakistan. Osama bin Laden escapes and continues to send messages to the media about inciting violence toward America and American interests. Obviously, care and attention should be paid to capturing and/or killing these people to prevent further bloodshed even if that means violating Pakistan’s borders to accomplish this mission. Is that where our leadership chooses to exercise force? No, we obviously should go attack Iraq. The reasons for entering Iraq were false. Our leadership knew these reasons were false at the time of communication. Our leadership resorted to use force under false pretenses with no specific mission or clear objectives. In short, we violated the compact with our citizen soldiers by asking them to enter a “no win” situation.
Still, the situation could have turned out OK if the leadership had chosen to withdraw from Iraq after the elections and the adoption of a constitution in June, 2004. Victory could have been declared and assistance could have been provided to the fledgling Iraqi government. Instead, we chose a path of occupation vs. liberation further violating the compact with our citizen soldiers. The terrorist factions, not dealt with in Afghanistan, now see this as an opportunity to bring the point home that America is not behaving consistently with its words. We say we wish to liberate, yet with our actions, we’re showing that we intend to occupy. This is a toxic environment where Iraqis are forced to side with terrorists (some might call them freedom fighters) or occupiers – neither of which provides Iraqis with a stable and secure government. The longer this is playing out, the more segmented the country becomes with regions and ethnic groups opting out of the process and the whole situation is degrading into a civil war of attrition.
Meanwhile, back home, even the most patriotic of Americans has an uneasy feeling that they’ve seen this movie before in the form of Vietnam. Instead of jungles and rice paddies the backdrop is sand, wind, and heat. The public is becoming increasingly uneasy that we’re on the wrong course and dissatisfaction manifests itself in crushing mid-term election losses for the incumbents with promises of change in the present policy. Unfortunately, the losses did not deliver super-majorities to the House and Senate meaning Presidential vetos are still effective in blocking the will of the people from being carried out.
This is the backdrop in which the Presidential candidates find themselves. What are the options for concluding the war in Iraq? The present Administration is on-record stating that a Korea-like model is most likely. That “police action” nominally concluded in 1953 and in 2007 the US still maintains some 50,000 active combat troops in the region. That’s clearly one option, but is it realistic? Is that the least bad option? What are other models for concluding the conflict. The other end of the scale is complete withdraw immediately leaving Iraq to sort this mess out itself. Is that the least bad option? What about asking Iraq’s neighbors to form a support network to help the fledgling government make it through the early days? What about replacing combat troops with a police presence? Fighting terrorism is more akin to fighting the mob than it is some monolithic enemy – what if we’re going about this the wrong way?
What we need to see from the candidate is a concrete plan to bring the conflict to a conclusion that is consistent with and honors the compact we have with our citizen soldiers. We need to see options and we need to select the least bad option and get on with it. With all due respect to the current Administration, the current course is simply wasting citizen’s lives and copious amounts of money to no good end. We need a fresh perspective.
Personally, I believe that if there really is an elected Iraqi government and constitution, we need to give it a chance to work and fail/succeed. We should be providing support for the Iraqis to build the type of country they wish to have (not what we might wish they’d want) and become subservient to that government. We should provide training and police support for some time period and help to rid the nation of foreign nationals. Overt military action and occupation of the country by our forces should now end (and should have ended more than 3 years ago.) I believe this course of action is consistent with our compact with citizen soldiers, honors the spirit of liberation by allowing the liberated to self-determine their future, and fulfills our responsibility for support in allowing that process to transpire.
But, I’m willing to listen to other options and why they might be good. So, candidates, say something. Anything. I’m listening.
